Laserfiche WebLink
Nobles County Bd. of Commis, 617 N.W.2d 566, 577 <br />{Minn. 2000). In so ruling, the Supreme Court noted that <br />local zoning authorities do not have "carte blanche to <br />arbitrarily block otherwise lawful development by the <br />passage of a new zoning law." Id. at 576. <br />(i) However, the Supreme Court limited its holding by <br />noting that "it is not just any litigation or any <br />legislation that we address, Rather, it is only <br />litigation in the unusual posture of a remand <br />limited [to making additional findings because the <br />first set were inadequate to permit judicial review], <br />and it is only legislative action for which the only <br />expressed purpose is to affect that limited <br />remand." Id. at 579 n.8. <br />b. The same principle was applied by the Minnesota Court <br />of Appeals even when there was no court remand, where <br />a city gave no explanation for its enactment of the new <br />ordinance, and it acknowledged that its sole purpose was <br />to defeat the plaintiff s permit. Northern States Power^ <br />Co. v. City of Mendota Heights, 646 N.W.2d 919, 927 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. 2002). <br />c. However, there are limits to this doctrine. In In re <br />LeisureTime Land Co., 2002 WL 15795 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />2002), the Court of Appeals found the applicant's <br />reliance on Interstate Power "misplaced," noting that <br />"the county did not attempt to amend an ordinance in <br />order to rescind approval of a previously approved <br />project." The Court limited the holding of Interstate <br />Power to the "particular circumstances" of that case, That <br />holding is that a local zoning authority "could not, when <br />directed on remand to explain its rationale for imposing <br />certain conditions on a conditional use permit, amend a <br />zoning ordinance and deny the permit altogether on the <br />basis of the newly enacted ordinance." Id. at *3. <br />6 <br />